Thursday, July 7, 2011

Casey Anthony - Opinion of the Jury (Updated)

Update Below

I must first preface anything I say in that I believe the evidence showed Casey was guilty. That said, I've always taken great pride in my ability to see both sides of the coin. I present the coin in the air. I don't think there is another side to the coin in this case, just a coin flipping, maybe just enough to avoid murder one. I also strongly feel the jurors knew they were going to cash in. Scott Peterson's jury wrote a book that became a top seller - those who wanted to, could stay anonymous. I won't lay out the case by details, there's plenty of blogs and articles out there already who have. I raise some serious questions however, based on the evidence, the jury's comments and what we do know. The trial happened an hour away. The jury lives in my county.

Caylee Anthony 2005-2008

The world was shocked by Casey Anthony's not guilty verdict, and I mean the world. Just in my very limited understanding of vernacular and prose of other languages and some minor words - comments not in English were pretty much the same as those who were. Unfortunately, the comments sections of news stories are some of the very same people who insisted on her guilt, saying "oh, uhm, yeah, I knew that". Juror's paid media appearances after the fact may show some serious incompetence and underlying motives.

More after the jump - click on headline

The Charges

Laid out simply, there were seven counts against Casey.

Murder in the First, aka Murder One.

Aggravated Child Abuse

Aggravated Manslaughter

4-7 - Four counts of separate instances of lying to police

Now remember, the jury is supposed to consider each count separately. They spent 10 hours in deliberations. This means that on average, they spent about an hour deciding each one. They did not ask for a review of any evidence, had no personal notes to refer to. They decided a life (Caylee's or Casey's) in about the same time you can have your photos developed! No review of the evidence that took weeks to lay out before them? Enjoy your cruise this week juror, especially with that extra cash from the media! (Yes, a juror had a cruise planned this week and had not canceled nor changed it after finding out he was selected.)

The Jury

Let's look at some of the jury's prior convictions, as noted by the ever loud, boastful Nancy Grace.

Drug paraphenalia

Domestic abuse committed along with a sister, to beat up their father

DUI

We also have a jurist who admitted they couldn't judge people.

This was known before the verdict obviously.

Casey Anthony in the courtroom

Evidence

I do not believe the evidence showed murder one. Those types of convictions are usually accompanied with eyewitnesses, confessions, DNA, or a mix of the three. As much as I think it was pre-meditated murder, the hurricane and length of time Caylee's decomposition destroyed anything to convict for murder one.

I also believe the article that eloquently stated the case for the "CSI effect". Too many people watch a huge brand of shows with pretty CGI effects on collecting, finding and using evidence. This isn't reality. Because many people know so little about the true ways to process evidence and linking it together, they take the TV show notions into the jury. The CSI effect is strongly backed by juror sentiment post trial.

The jurists are swarming to the media. It must also be noted that, those who have sold their jury ideas receive death threats, it's their own damn fault. No one forced the jurors to "come out". I don't think it's right to pass around their private info, but I'm not going to be so naive that others will follow my ideas. The jurors personal information is a click away. They admitted they knew there would be backlash. So you bring it on yourself. Just because I'm not psycho to track someone down, doesn't mean there aren't others who will.

So far, we know of at least three, as of this writing, who've decided to speak up. You see, post trial, a statement by the group during a post-trial presser nets them no money. Yet, almost immediately after, individual interviews began to trickle out "exclusively" to certain news media.

Russel Hueckler was the first to speak out. The jury supposedly said they absolutely would not do any group media interviews or statements but alas, within a couple of hours, we had our first. An alternate who was present during the trial and deliberations.

Alternate juror Russell Huekler told HLN it appeared the Anthony family didn't know how to deal with a "horrific accident" and that he believed that Casey's father, George, was "hiding something."

The problem with this, George Anthony was not on trial. They stated they didn't believe George as a main reason for not convicting Casey. Jurors are referring to "enough evidence" and keep trying to say they removed emotion. Yet, they are all saying the same thing. They "think" George was lying. There was no evidence he was lying, there were dozens of other witnesses and evidence pieces. Yet, it was about George? If they ruled this way because they believed George to be lying, why couldn't they rule this way if they believed Casey did it? Fallacies abound.

Jennifer Ford was paid handsomely by ABC for her thoughts, even more so to reveal her name, yet more to reveal her face and finally, a little bit more to reveal her personal info. (I think disclosing your studies and your school is ridiculous. Doing this will make the school face an increase in security costs and possibly some pretty nasty acts just for her going there.)

"If you're gonna charge someone with murder, don't you have to know how they killed someone or why they might have killed someone or have something where, when, why, how? Those are important questions. They were not answered."

Well, yes and no. The actual cause of death no. Yet, we know there was multiple statements on the car, we know when the death was pinpointed to, we know the why and the how is a repeat from the same comment. This shows quite a big "stick heads in sands" comment. Dozens of convictions have happened without the cause of death being fully determined. The reasons cause of death can't be determined have direct relation to Casey, not reporting her child missing. Caylee was too decomposed and (graphic alert) partially dragged and eaten away by animals.

She said the jurors fled right after delivering the verdict, not willing to face media scrutiny for their decision.

"Everyone wonders why we didn't speak to the media right away," Ford said. "It was because we were sick to our stomach to get that verdict.

"It was emotional, and we weren't ready. We wanted to do it with integrity, and not contribute to the sensationalism of the trial."

Ah, but they are willing now... when it's most profitable. I see. If this was a couple months or even weeks down the road, maybe. But one juror waited 3 hours, the second waited about 12 and the third waited about 18. All time for negotiations. I guess scrutiny is available at a price. Waiting half a day, with a big, fat check is much less "sensational".

"I did not say she was innocent," she said. "I just said here was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."

Every juror was instructed to not think about the punishment, but rather the charges alone. The sentencing phase is later. A little girl is dead. That's a crime. She died at the hands of Casey, whether they felt the defense was correct in accidental, or whether the prosecution felt it in murder. They aren't just supposed to give a "present" vote but to back up one side or the other. You must take side A or side B here when determining the chain of events. The defense argued it was an accident and she flung her body in the woods anyway, like a dead pet. They felt she was lying to police about the case. Two counts again for at the very least, child abuse.

Another problem persisting in the jury deliberations is that they don't believe the defense either. Comments such as the family was dysfunctional before Caylee was even born was excuses given for the Not Guilty verdict.

Juror #2:

"Everybody agreed, if we were going fully on feelings and emotions, she was done."

But isn't that exactly what they did, but without the big payday? They "felt" George was lying with no evidence to the contrary. Cindy was actually lying, proven by computer forensics, but there was no weight to her?

A big issue I have is that they said they couldn't use Casey's actions after Caylee's death for anything. Yet, that's exactly what one can do. On the phone, Casey told her mother, "I don't fucking know where Caylee is." Not knowing where your child is while you ham it up and not reporting it is at the very least child abuse. Whether they believed it accident or not, throwing a child in the woods is child abuse. I take strong issue with the fact that now that Casey's defense admits she had something to do with her death, Casey got a tattoo of "Beautiful Life" in Italian on her shoulder, all while Caylee laid out in the woods, being eaten up, with duct tape over her mouth. I don't buy for a second that they buried their pets with duct tape and stickers over their mouths either. Even if I did, Caylee was NOT an animal.

In the end, I think the jury knew they'd cash out more by not guilty verdicts, they would get out of there faster, and they didn't care to listen to the instructions given to them by the judge. They found one piece of the whole shebang to go after so they didn't have to take responsibility. Casey rolled over on her mother, her father, other people she didn't know or barely knew, and today - she could walk.

Casey was just served with papers in a defamation suit against the woman whose name she said took her child. I know the jury cannot use this, but the jury was made aware the woman Casey said had her, never was close to the facts.

Casey's prison journal summarizes: I dreamed I was pregnant, when this is all over, I want to adopt. There are so many kids out there who need parents.

Just like Caylee did.
__________________________________ Update - 11:50am EDT
As I had said, here's more evidence the jury had ulterior motives. This juror is actually shopping around even further.

We're told the juror has already received multiple offers from big news operations, including at least one major network. Sources tell us ... the high offers are in the "mid 5-figures."

Paid interviews are a hazy moral territory for obvious reasons -- and the publicist, Rick French, admits, paying for sit-downs is "always a sticky subject and believe me, I understand the delicacy of this type of negotiation."

But French insists ... sticky or not, his client ain't budging -- "He will not entertain any offers that don't include compensation for a myriad of reasons."

Here's the catch of our laws. She's acquitted, no amount of proof, her dancing it in the streets or a jury ruled incompetent will matter.

If she had been convicted, she could have received dozens of appeals - including jury improprieties and biases.

Unbelievable. I too believe the jury is in it for the money. I cannot believe that there is not a law in criminal cases that forbids anyone involved in the case to profit. including jurors, lawyers, and of course the accused. It is a very sick society when people are willing to allow big bucks to be paid to people involved in these cases. Maybe the ones paying the big bucks should be black listed, so that maybe justice will be more of a priority.

Anon - I'm afraid it won't be that simple. We know that many outlets have claimed not to pay, but we also know they made "donations" to certain outlets or paid lawyers. The paper trail to get compensation can be long with everyone each taking a little off the top.

ABC News is a big payer for Jennifer Ford and they haven't outright denied it. However, ABC also houses shows like Wipeout. So we could blacklist but considering that my ONLY local newspaper paid (St. Pete Times) for Juror #2 and it's the only place to get my coupons for grocery shopping, do I cut my nose off to spite my face?

This is what those big pay-for-interviews count on. That they are big enough to withstand a few purists boycotting or leaving it behind, but that enough people rely on them for whatever reason.

I have been jury before so I don't blame the jury. The rules state that they have to have real evidence to prove that she did the crime in order for them to say that she was guilty. They could have given her life instad of the death penalty or waited to fin some evidence that would put her away before they put her to trial because now she can't charged for that crime. She can get neglect. I don't k now why they didn't dod that